The philosophy of "Kill the terrorists and their families" is still fucked up even when leftists do it people.
Ah yes, the "kill their families" leftist, a well known and VERY real demographic
Acknowledging that revolutions are devastating acts of violence and some immoral acts will be inevitable is the same thing as literally wanting to kill children. We are actually exactly like the characterization of commies in 1950s propaganda, literally hungry for baby blood.
Shh, shh, shhhhh that’s enough of that, come on it’s time for bed lets tuck you in, I checked there’s no Dorners in the closet, I’ll put some zootpia on so you can fall asleep, night night luv uuuu
Yes, it's something I feel very strongly about and find morally abhorrent to my core.
Apparently there's a non-insignificant number of leftists who find such a thing acceptable, perhaps even preferable, which provokes a strong reaction from me.
Dorner didn't kill cops' families out of "justice" or whatever. It is an asymmetric warfare tactic commonly used to terrorize targets that are too strong to go after themselves. Dorner was literally a terrorist, it's just that he terrorized cops and everyone here rightfully hates cops. I don't think anyone here thinks cop families are guilty of the same crimes cops are.
This isn't just about Dorner, it got me thinking about the issue at large as well.
The problem is you think your moral purity is more important than liberation of all people.
Love too have my entire family and community genocided because the "revolutionaries" were worried about moral purity and got fucking executed
I'm not saying "we need to kill children" lol. I'm saying that you don't fucking know what a revolution would look like, especially in the imperial core where if we win all capitalists everywhere lose. Maybe it will be a relatively bloodless affair. Maybe everything will work out and revolutionary terror won't be necessary.
But you should be prepared for it to not be like that at all. You should be prepared for the enemy to mass murder us and our families with impunity. You should be prepared to do anything necessary to stop them, keyword being necessary. That's all we are saying. And people are handwringing like we want to kill babies, or even plan on it. I don't want to kill anyone, and I have no plans to ever kill anyone. But if fascists begin rounding up and killing those I love and care about, things change.
Yes, and the simple fact of the matter is that while avoiding underage casualties in war may be impossible and that is worth saying, it is also worth saying that “revolutionary terror targeting children doesn’t serve the ends of any revolution” and accepting that, even during a revolution, there are things you don’t do because they are so wrong that they undermine your cause.
I mean, that's wrong though. You don't know what the situation will be and what the stakes will be. What if the horrible act is the only thing you can do to try and stop something worse?
Yes, and the simple fact of the matter is that while avoiding underage casualties in war may be impossible and that is worth saying, it is also worth saying that “revolutionary terror targeting children doesn’t serve the ends of any revolution” and accepting that, even during a revolution, there are things you don’t do because they are so wrong that they undermine your cause.
This is the mischaracterization, it's neither of those things. Saying revolutionary terror targeting children doesn't serve the ends of any revolution is just objectively wrong. And saying that we think it's acceptable is also wrong. Sometimes you have to do things that are unacceptable and you shouldn't try to justify them. You can clarify context to let other people make their own judgement without justifying these acts. Likely, they will have the same conflicting feelings you would.
There was a thread I started regarding Dorner and how I was fine with him going after cops, but not so much how he targeted and killed a cop's daughter, that's what got me thinking about this subject more broadly.
why are you looking for reasons to "sit it out" when there isn't even an organized left to participate in
I'm using "the revolution" as a general term, I'm fully aware it's not happening tomorrow.
Because in reality they're a comfortable lib and to them, the revolution failing would mean that they go back to playing vidya and eating tendies, when for others it would mean death for them and their families.
How? That had nothing to do with families. They classified civilians as combatants just because they were military age males.
Is there anything more useless than making statements about "the revolution" when we don't even have a functioning labor movement at the moment. Like let me know when this becomes an issue homie
I'm sorry this isn't some video game you can max out your honor points in. I'll be sure to find a bloodless revolution that did not act in a brutal way when confronted with brutality, and I'll send you their way.
You act like it's physically impossible to not go out of your way to kill people's families when, in fact, it very much is.
The guy I responded to didn't seem to view it like you do.
You didn't exactly say that in your original comment.
No, you didn't read that. If I came across as unclear, it's because I'm frustrated with anyone giving a shit about stuff like that when there are thousands of more pressing things to worry about being done by the enemy.
Well, it's important to me, don't really know what to tell ya.
Look at some of the tactics used during Westward expansion. When the Native Americans were able to successfully defend territory, the settlers began waging war on the land. Destroying crops, slaughtering Buffalo, and spreading Smallpox. What would you do in response to having your whole way of life threatened with indiscriminate violence and terror?
Natives defending themselves against genocide/extermination isn't exactly the same thing as the hypothetical revolution that's always talked about here.
Let's consider our modern day police force. How should the separated children held captive by ICE feel about the officers who detained their family? Do you think they support the officers going home to their families while they suffer in desolation?
This isn't really relevant since the officers are the actual perpetrators deserving of retribution. I'm talking about the idea of automatically punishing their families as well.
This is very relevant but you haven't considered it yet. Our modern day police have already weaponized family separation. If it meant getting information, cooperation, or a confession, they will threaten your family. I would not tell any victim of these forms of terrorism how they should manage their reaction to this injustice.
I would hope the average person, even in that terrible scenario, would realize that killing people who didn't hurt them is wrong and wouldn't really achieve anything.
Have you ever spoken with a person who has been separated from their family by the state?
Yeah I'd hope the world could all hold hands and song kumbaya too but we live in hellworld and people are going to do what they have to do to stop devastation.
No one is advocating that except the bloodthirsty backers of US hegemony.
You cant live your life like there’s not some violence done against you in some way.
And especially against an adversary that would think nothing of doing that to you. Your mere existence as a leftist invites violence onto you in this system. Your code of honor means nothing if it doesnt do anything to save anyone from the potential violence and certainly doesnt absolve you of any suppose guilt in association with us. We dont have the luxury of holding to any rules of engagement or to have any held to us.
We have to fight because for many of us the only crime we’re guilty of is existing.
Then you'd be an enemy I guess. By any means necessary means any. If you are comfy enough to "sit out" the revolution and passively condone the current system of mass violence and exploitation because it makes you feel bad then I guess you can have fun being on the receiving end of revolutionary terror.
The whole idea that revolution is some moral decision and that you get to judge it morally is fucking peak liberalism. "We will make no excuses for the terror" doesn't mean "when they go low, we go high"
Apparently not wanting to unnecessarily bathe in the blood of innocents is too high of a price to ask I guess.
Nobody wants to bathe in the blood of innocents you lib. People are saying exactly what Marx said, which is that we shall make no excuses for the terror. Maybe read the On Violence chapter of Wretched of the Earth by Fanon.
Violence is power. Period. If the other side is willing to use extreme indiscriminate violence but you're sticking by your principles, you will lose. And when you lose, things won't go back to normal. They will execute you, rape, murder and enslave your loved ones all because you want to be 100% sure you don't make an oopsie woopsie and burn down a house that some fascist's hellspawn lives in.
If the only way to win is for me to murder someone only because they just so happen to be related to someone else who's bad, I suppose I'll lose then.
To clarify: I acknowledge that odds are some innocent casualties are inevitable, I'm just saying not to go out of your way to do so and make it a priority.
Imagine being such a self-centered piece of shit that you'd be willing to see the revolution fail so that your morality boner isn't deflated.
You act as if people here can't wait to smash babies against the wall or something. Literally nobody is saying that. We are saying that revolution isn't a moral act. Its an act of violence by one class to completely dominate another. Anything less and it will fail and everyone you care about will be tortured and killed. Forces of reaction are always willing to use extreme violence and committing to taking the high road from the jump is basically admitting defeat before you even start.
I'm a piece of shit for not wanting to needlessly kill people.
Alright bro, whatever you say lol.
Who is deciding who is "necessary" to kill? Who is deciding what is a necessary scenario? Do you think the current order is not objectively predicated on mass slaughter and exploitation? I mean I know you don't experience it but it does exist, and allowing the current system to continue is tacitly condoning said mass slaughter. Would you kill a hostage if it stopped the genocide in Yemen? How about two? How many is too many?
Instead of downvoting, answer my question or refute my point cowards.
Sure, I'll take you up on that. Your notion that revolution has nothing to do with morality is completely false, and I think you recognize that yourself. You mention a number of justifications for violence in your other posts, including:
- Stopping genocide
- Destroying systems of mass violence and oppression
- Avoiding postwar repression
These are all essentially moral goals. You view them as desirable because you (like most people I would hope) possess a set of morals that objects to things like genocide and exploitation. Your argument is that these things are so horrible that they warrant otherwise reprehensible actions to destroy them. Unless, of course, you think that killing and violence is just based, and fuck things like improving the lives of human beings. Then you're just a monster, and there's no point in try to deal with you at all.
Pretending that class struggle exists only for its own sake is both wrong and deceitful. Revolution IS a "moral decision." If you want to argue about what our values entail in terms of action, fine. But don't pretend that our values have no role to play at all. Marx was wrong as shit when he said that we will make no excuses for the terror. If we CANNOT find justification for terror, then we are lost.
edit: typo
"you make a good point but I feel like your just a psychopath, so I will ignore it"
My answer is that there is no answer to these questions, and to try an predetermine one is honestly pretty macabre. In a revolution, which is by definition an act of extreme violence and domination, morality becomes secondary to winning. Deciding in the moment whether or not something is necessary is messy and ugly but sometimes that's what had to be done.
Hypothetically, let's say the fascists are genociding Latinos. Like straight up turn ICE camps into death camps. And let's say we take all of the fascist leaders children hostage but they won't negotiate because they don't believe we will kill children. What do you do? Do you kill one? I'd say yes. What if they still refuse to negotiate, or only meet some of the demands? It's a fucked up situation but it's necessary.
Killing children to instill a sense of general terror, is a worthless act as well as an immoral acts. Immoral acts must only be taken when the ends justify the means, but that's always going to be a gray area and not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes as "necessary".
All the libs in here are saying "killing children is wrong and I'd rather a revolution fail than participate in immoral acts for the greater good"
Definitely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are circumstances surrounding any hypothetical acts of violence. Holding a firm moral stance against a particular type of violence and ruling it out completely, to the point that you'd literally desert the revolution because of it, means that you don't really see revolution for what it is and don't regard the current order as one that's built on mass slaughter in the first place.
It's pretty easy to say you wouldn't kill children. I mean, if anyone asked me with no context of obviously say no, because I have no desire to kill anyone let alone an innocent child. But in a hypothetical war with reactionaries, I don't know the context. I don't know if they will be trying to genocide my friends and family or whatever because it's hypothetical. People underestimate the insane brutality which the forces of reaction are willing to use to hold onto their power, and also the brutality that is necessary to defeat them.
Because it's literally killing babies. Getting overenthusiastic about a political candidate is drastically different from getting overenthusiastic about killing people. We have a natural aversion to the latter.
Good to know your own personal comfort is the most important thing in the world
Nobody wants to live in such a world. We literally live in a world where extreme violence, torture and misery are the norm. You're just insulated from it.
And we are talking about a hypothetical revolution. What makes you think you will get to choose whether or not you fight? Very likely if you're fighting age the reactionaries will conscript you, and your choices will be fight with them, fight with us, or be killed and help nobody but keep your moral integrity intact. The whole point of this thread is that there is no choice in some circumstances. You either do something horrible or something worse will happen to you and your people. This whole thread was started by a guy who said basically "I'd rather the worse stuff happen to my people than tarnish my moral purity."
give me a break. even the mighty lib chomsky realizes terror can be moral and justified and the only option available to the undergunned and undermanned oppressed.
he's a lib but hes right here. the example he often uses is the sandinistas who were morally in the right and morally justified and hes correct.
sandinista good us imperialism nuking japan bad those are two different things
the ends really do sometimes justify the means. that's what makes it moral. if the only way for sandinistas to overthrow the oppressor is terror it's morally superior to the somoza oppression. killing people is wrong, except when it's not. it's the same with terror. it's unpleasant but that's life
I mean at this point you're splitting hairs. They're saying that we must be ready to do reprehensible shit in order to stop reprehensible shit from happening but trying to justify solder of those acts is just dark and macabre. The idea is that after you do something horrible, you should never try to wipe your hands of it and I agree. If I was in a revolution and we used heinous terror out of necessity, I wouldn't want the new revolutionary government to write in it's textbooks that it was morally right. I'd want to say it was morally wrong and we regret that it had to happen.
Viet Cong would strap bombs to toddlers and send them into a group of US soldiers because at first they wouldn't shoot them. This is not something I would ever think was an option, but then again I've never watched everyone I know and love burn to death from napalm, so I don't think it's my place to judge.
The Americans started shooting kids that came towards them, of course.
I could give a principled strategic and operational analysis of this concern, but nah.
The bloodlust just got ten feet taller
Just swimming in a fucking ocean of blood chugging it because of my insatiable glut for blood.
